Flossing has been recognized for more than a hundred years as an important aspect of dental hygiene. Nonetheless, at present in the United States, only about 65% of the population buys dental floss yearly and only 10-20% use it regularly. While most know they should floss, many do not for a number of reasons including the time, discomfort, and overall inconvenience involved. One knowledgeable in the art will be aware that numerous inventors have attempted to make flossing an easier, briefer, and neater operation. Unfortunately, even the combined prior art has failed to provide satisfactory solutions to the real problems at hand. Further contributing to the failure of the general population to floss properly and on a regular basis is a general lack of public awareness of the vital links between flossing and health and the importance of proper technique.
The consequences of not flossing are significant in terms of expense and the eventual inconvenience that far outweighs that represented by flossing. For example, it has been found that 75% of the public has gum problems. As a result, by the time the average person is 50, he or she has lost eight teeth. By sixty, ten to twelve teeth are likely lost while many will lose even more. This tooth loss commonly leads to costly and painful implants, bridges, and even full dentures whereby those suffering the tooth loss regret not being more diligent in their dental hygiene.
The need for proper dental hygiene has been emphasized still further by relatively recent scientific discoveries. By way of example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) has reported findings that provide overwhelming proof that infectious disease is commonly spread through touch, typically hand to mouth. Notably, the mouth is an ideal entry point for germs to invade the human body since, once germs have entered the mouth, the teeth and gums make perfect lodging points for permanent colonies of bacteria to develop. If not regularly removed or destroyed, such bacteria can incite continuing health problems throughout the body. As has been demonstrated by numerous studies including those conducted under the auspices of the National Institutes for Health (the NIH), oral bacterial infections can generate inflammation and contribute to many more widespread and serious maladies, including debilitating systemic illnesses such as cardiovascular, respiratory, and heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer, while accelerating the aging process itself.
Indeed, the importance of dental health has long been known to astute farmers, cowboys, and breeders who have appreciated that an experienced look into a horse's mouth will reveal volumes about the animal's overall health history and future. This valuable knowledge was eventually reflected in the “focal infection theory” of human disease: that local infections, especially oral abscesses and dental decay, rather than periodontal disease, could undermine the health of the whole body. As a result, widespread tooth extractions were commonplace until recent decades when improved dental techniques and antibiotics shifted the emphasis to saving teeth whenever possible.
However, with such discoveries as porphyromonas gingivalis bacteria in coronary artery blockages where they likely journeyed through tiny tears in diseased gum tissue, the focal infection theory has returned with the focus now on chronic periodontal disease. With that, some physicians now recommend antibiotics before dental work, particularly in patients with heart disease, since the poking and prodding inherent in dental work tends to nick the gums thereby unleashing potent pockets of germs directly into the bloodstream. Notably, similar adverse repercussions can be experienced during everyday tooth brushing and even chewing by those with bleeding gums as a result of, for example, gingivitis thereby leading to chronic systemic damage. Indeed, approximately forty diseases, including osteoporosis, obesity and elevated LDL cholesterol, have been decisively linked with periodontal infection.
With the knowledge provided by the CDC and others in relation to the critical role of touch in microbial transmission, new light has been shed on the need for proper dental hygiene, particularly flossing since it requires people to put their hands or other implements directly into their mouths for a prolonged, relatively invasive procedure thereby providing an optimal opportunity for the transfer of germs. Like carelessly performed minor surgery, improper flossing and flossing with non-sterile materials can cause harmful bacteria to be released directly into the bloodstream where they can cause havoc at distant sites. Accordingly, it will be appreciated that there is a need for the provision of sterile materials for enabling flossing in a safe and sterile manner.
Another major obstacle to proper, effective flossing is the failure of many to understand the health risks connected with poor dental hygiene. Many believe flossing is designed only to remove occasional food particles, and too few recognize the fundamental purpose of flossing, namely the removal of thin layers of bacteria-rich plaque that coat the sides of teeth above and below the gum line. Still further, even among those who realize the importance of plaque removal through flossing commonly practice flawed, inefficient methods for flossing. Some use only one very short piece of floss held between their thumbs and forefingers to complete their entire mouths while others use larger pieces improperly wrapped around their index fingers and not their middle fingers. Such improper flossing can lead to a “cross contamination” of bacteria from one tooth and gum area to another.
Proper flossing has the primary goal of removing as many bacteria as possible from each tooth and gum. As such, a clean section of floss should be used for each side of each tooth. To do so, the floss should be inserted between the teeth and gently moved just to the gum line. The floss can be made into a general U-shape around the tooth and carefully drawn away from gum line toward the biting surface of the tooth. The direction should not be reversed with the same section of floss since doing so would reintroduce the bacteria-laden plaque to the teeth. Therefore, the floss should be shifted laterally and the process repeated one or more times, each time using a fresh section. With the floss shifted laterally, the next section, such as the next inch, of floss should be moved under the gum line, around the tooth, and then carefully drawn from below the gums thereby removing deeply hidden plaque. The floss should not be sawn back and forth since doing so leaves most of the plaque in place and could damage the gums. Instead, the plaque-laden floss should be drawn in one direction only, namely away from the gum line. The same procedure should be repeated for each side of each tooth.
As the present discussion makes clear, proper flossing under prior art methods employing prior art devices is a time-consuming and messy operation that requires significant lengths of floss. For example, the typical person having no wisdom teeth will have 28 teeth in total thereby requiring a practical minimum of 56 inches of clean floss and a roughly equal amount of clean floss for their gums. With this, it becomes apparent that the 18 inches often recommended for the entire mouth is entirely inadequate. However, retaining and working with the significant lengths of floss needed for proper flossing can be problematic for a number of reasons. First, wrapping over 56 inches of floss around one's bare fingers inevitably leads to an uncomfortable and possibly dangerous constriction and loss of circulation in the user's fingers. Furthermore, by wrapping the floss repeatedly around his or her finger, the user tends to contaminate the dental floss before it can even enter his or her mouth. Still further, as the floss is moved laterally in the hope of providing a new section of floss, used, wet floss fully laden with contaminants must be wrapped around the finger or fingers on the user's opposite hand. Even further still, it must be noted that, particularly when wet, dental floss is hard to grip and otherwise maintain relative to a user's fingers thereby resulting in slippage, loss of grip, and less effective flossing. With these and further disadvantages in mind, it is clear that flossing with bare fingers can be a messy, unsanitary, unpleasant, and time-consuming activity whereby the disincentive against flossing is exaggerated.
In light of the foregoing, it will be appreciated that there is a true need for making the proper and consistent practice of dental flossing a reality for a significantly greater portion of the public. Accordingly, it will be further appreciated that there is a concomitant need for apparatuses and methods for rendering the flossing of one's teeth a faster, more convenient, effective, and hygienic endeavor such that more people will be willing to floss in a proper manner and on a regular basis.